ML20205L910
| ML20205L910 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/23/1987 |
| From: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Blass G SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205L915 | List: |
| References | |
| OL-5, NUDOCS 8704020221 | |
| Download: ML20205L910 (4) | |
Text
__
\\
UNITED STATES j
p NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20065 March 23, 1987 Gregory J. Blass, Presiding Officer Michael _A. LoGrande, Suffolk Suffolk County Legislature County Executive Legislature Building H. Lee Dennison Building Veterans Memorial Highway Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge. New-York 11788 Hauppauge, New York 11788 Gentlemen:
In your March 10, 1987 joint letter to me, you requested me to disqualify ntyself and the rest of the NRC Staff from participating as a party in the Shoreham licensing proceed'ings.
In addition you requested my appearance before a Special Session of the County Legislature and that I "... digest the facts presented in [your] letter." You disagree with my beliefs concerning the difficulties associated with developing appropriate emergency plans for the Shoreham facility as explained in my February 20, 1987 response to Mr.
LoGrande's January 16th letter.
I have no authority, nor do I believe it appropriate, to disqualify myself or my staff from our public duty to administer the Comission's regulations and the Atomic Energy Act. The NRC Staff is required to review license applications to insure that facilities are safe and to advise the Comission concerning their safety.
If we believe a facility has been designed and constructed safely then that facility is entitled to a license when all requirements have been satisfied.
In contested proceedings, such as Shoreham, staff conclusions about facility safety are presented to the Commission in fomal licensing proceedings where the staff participates as a party. The only issue remaining in the Shoreham proceeding is offsite emergency planning on which an informed decision has not been reached since the state and local governments have not been willing to-participate in planning and exercises which would enable the Comission to determine whether its regulations could be satisfied.
You requested that I appear before a Special Session of the County Legislature concerning "What is [my] true purpose in putting LILCO's interests above those of Suffolk County's citizen?" You state that my February 20 letter " parades a bias that stems either from ignorance of the facts or from design." In addition you want to know with whom'I have met, what private conversations I have had with NRC Comissioners, and the sources I rely on for information about emergency planning at Shoreham.
I must decline to appear at a County hearing on such subjects.
I have had no private conversations with Comissioners on matters sub,iect to k
adjudication in the Shoreham proceeding. Any such contacts are forbidden by federal statute. The judgments of the NRC staff in the Shoreham case have been and will continue to be reached independently of the positions or
\\
filings of LILCO. Suffolk County, or any other party to the proceeding,
'V -
4 public or private.
I would be pleased, however, to meet either or both of k
4/
l t
you in my office concerning the safety of the Shoreham fadlity or my beliefs as outlined above or to meet with a delegation of your choosing on those subjects.
l Your final request that I " digest the facts presented in this letter" is apparently referring to the beliefs I expressed in my February 20th letter that State and local governments would act in the best interest of their citizens by following the best plan available should there be an emergency.
Whether the best plan is ultimately the LILCO plan or some other plan you 3
may have developed is something I am not presently able to judge. This is I
because the best plan is one to which all affected persons (LILCO, State, j
local and federal officials) have access and in tha event of an emergency I
would follow. Even though I know you disagree, I continue to believe this
{
statement is accurate.
In the event that Shoreham were to be licensed-and at some future time the County of Suffolk were called on to protect some of its citizens in the vicinity of the facility, I do not believe either of you would fail to take appropriate actions.
Sincerely, Original cigned by Victor StcllG,,>-
Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director cc: Service List DIS T RIB U TIO N :
W 01mstead/C hron LMcDonald J Taylor JScinto E Reis H Denton JM urray V Stello T Murley GJohnson J Taylor JFouchard M Karman JRoe E D 02621 0 Pirfo TRehm 0G C FF (2) (50-322)
R Bachmann T Rehm N R C Central File C Barth JZerbe PDR SECY i
- See previous concurrence OFC :0GC
- 0GC
- IE
- PA
- ED0
_____:______.____..__ :________...___:__..______....:_____________ :..g..._____.:.__.........
NAME :W01mstead*
- JMurray*
- JTaylor
- JFouchard
- V llo 3 / /l/ F)
/ / t' /
- J M3 / F)
- 3 /2/r1 DATE :1/11 /9 >
- l*
i I
you in my office concerning the safety of the Shoreham facility or my beliefs as outlined above or to meet with a delegation of your choosing on those subjects.
I Your final request that I " digest the facts presented in this letter" is apparently referring to the beliefs I expressed in my February 20th letter that State and local governments would act in the best interest of their citizens by following the best plan available should there be an emergency.
Whether the best plan is ultimately the LILCO plan or some other plan you may have developed is something I am not presently able to judge.
This is because the best plan is one to which 1 affected persons. (LILCO, State, local and federal officials) have acces and in the event of an emergency would follow.
Even though I know y disagree, I continue to believe this statement is accurate.
In the event hat Shoreham v.ere to be licensed and at some future time the County of S ffolk were called on to protect some of its citizens-in the vicinity of the acility, I do not believe either of you would fail to take ap ropriate actio s.
Sincerely, Original Signed by "ictor Stollo
+
Vic r Stello, Jr.
Execu e Director for Op tions cc: Service List DISTRIBUTION:
WOlmstead/Chron LM Donald JTaylor a
JScinto E
is HDenton JMurray V tello TMurley GJohnson Taylor JFouchard MKarman JRoe EDO 2621 OPirfo TRehm OGC FF (2) (50-322)
RBachmann TRehm NRC Central File CBarth JZerbe PDR Service List SECY 0
/
Ott
/1 000' WIK PA
_________:___ p__h __.
NME :
mstead/amh : Murray
- J1hylob i hard Ilo IWIE 3//2/47 9 /I4/
/h
)
Ek EU E7
/
UNITE 3 STATES 8
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E
WASHINGTON,0. C. 20885
%*****/
EDO PRINCIPAL CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL FROM:
DUE: 03/20/87 EDO CONTROL: 002621 DOC DT: 03/10/87 MICHAEL A. LOGRANDE FINAL REPLY:
GREGORY J. BLASS SUFFOLK COUNTY TO:
STELLO FOR SIGNATURE OF:
- < PRIORITY **
SECY NO:
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DESC:
ROUTING:
EMERGENCY PLANNING RE SHOREHAM STELLO ROE DATE: 03/11/87 REHM ASSIGNED TO: OGC CONTACT: MURRAY ZERBE TAYLOR DENTON SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:
MURLEY REF. EDO 2489 1
h/,
-